Los Angeles Dodgers season ticket holders want to make sure Frank McCourt isn't screwing them over in the team's bankruptcy proceedings -- and they've filed a motion to make sure they're protected.
Attorneys representing a handful of season ticket holders filed docs with the bankruptcy court in Delaware ...seeking to establish a formal committee of more than 17,000 season ticket holders.
According to the docs, the committee's goal is to make sure Dodger funds are going to what they consider the most important part of the "fan experience" -- such as acquiring new players, meeting payroll, renovating the stadium, and operating concessions.
The motion also specifically mentions the need for "security" at the stadium -- which has been a hot button issue since the Opening Day beating of Giants fan Bryan Stow.
According to the docs, the season ticket holders have collectively poured "hundreds of millions of dollars" into the storied franchise -- and some individuals pay up to $150,000 per season.
The Dodgers filed for bankruptcy back in June. If the fans' motion is approved they could have a voice in future decisions about the team -- such as whether it's sold and to whom.
See More
Reader Comments
(Page 1 of 1)
A better idea is for all the season ticket holders to refuse to renew their order.
If no ticket holders sign up for next year, McCourt will realize he's in trouble.
COME ON, FANS, DO THE RIGHT THING. BOYCOTT THE DODGERS!!!
x
up to $150,000 per year and you have to put your life-on-the-line, too? dang, how can somebody so dumb have so much money?
this suit and position has no
merit in frankruptcy court;
frankrupt mc hoard is a master at dodging
everything that's throw as a curveball his way.
this court filing will get
throw out without merit ....
oh delaware! lol, isn't that the famous place for all the credit cards with the 'great interest rates' ;D (ghedit cards) and where the 'bank' is actually an indian casino run by a chief in a pink polyester, though three piece suit? yea, good one, 'fans'! i totally loled!
ok, so say someone owns a horse. then people in the surrounding community say: hey! can we all use your horse? it's a good and strong horse, and we all can really use it from time to time. you would be doing us a great favor. and we will pay for some of it's hay, too! so the owner agrees (maybe even reluctantly, but wants to keep the peace with his neighbors, so he agrees). so the people start to use the horse, totally overloading it, not feeding it sufficiently, and also not allowing it to rest enough. more and more people begin to use the horse, overloading it with more and more weight, as they are getting increasing busy, etc. eventually, the horse dies, exhausted and with a broken back. does the 'original owner' now owe the people a new horse, because he 'promised them' and 'made an egreement with them'? should he be obligated to replace their 'collective horse' with a fresh and young new one? i really do wonder...
